Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I'm trying to point out, since you said this:
You just don't understand my point. You asked which came first. Both came at the first time. The difference is the strata formed over a period of extended time, while the fossils (bones) collected within that time frame.
The doctrine of self-interpretation is your doctrine, not theirs.
Or maybe because we think they're right. You keep blaming it on "evolution," but of all the reasons not to believe your Bible doctrine, evolution isn't even near the top of the list.
Or maybe your Bible doctrine is wrong. You don't own the Bible. You don't get to dictate what other Christians must believe about it--especially when you don't understand why they believe the way they do.
No, I don't. That's part,of determining what a text says. But the how a text says it doesn't necessarily change what the text says. Some come to fault with that thought process. Genesis being a,good example. As you well know some believe Gen 1 is poetry. Other scholars say it doesn't fit Hebrew poetry. But for arguments sake,even if it was written in poetic format it does not mean it is not fact. But many people base their thought on that rather again by the text.
What it means is that the proposition that it is accurate historical fact is faith-based, not scholarship. Mind you, if that's what you want to believe, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. I'm just trying to explain to you why I believe what I do.
Actually no. It is based on scholarship. Scholarship lets the text speak for itself. It's only upon outside influences that change ones thoughts about the text. It's called outside bias. And for Genesis this outside bias is usually based upon science. Since science tries to tell us Genesis cannot be accurate therefore their must be another answer. The other answers are usually relegated Genesis being poetry or referring to other uninspired ancient literature. Instead of just letting scripture speak for itself. Of you do there is no other answer. Failure to,take,it at face value is not scholarship but biased thinking not based on scripture but outside influence.
This would be nice if it were true, but it's not even remotely the case. It's always a human being reading the text, a human being from a particular cultural context, with expectations about how texts work and about how to read. "Letting the text speak for itself" means nothing more than going with whatever default presuppositions and biases you happen to have inherited. If you let the text "speak for itself", it will tell you something very different than it would have told a 14th century Scholastic or a 1st century Jew.
Also not true. For most Biblical scholars, the "outside bias" is the cultural context of the ancient Near East -- the context in which Genesis was written.
LOL! You seem to have an obsession about science, but for my part if the theories of evolution and an ancient cosmos were overturned by credible evidence tomorrow, my opinion of Genesis would not change.
We don't. Scholarship is available to every believer. Its not just for "educated folks". That's part of the problem. Some believe that because someone throws "I'm a scholar" on the end of their name they suddenly have greater insight. We don't need education. We need the spirit of God. In the days of the NT Paul told us that individuals in the church were granted to be teachers. He never said they had to get edumacated. The spirit guide s not a text book.
Nope, they can form in days or weeks, many layers even at the same time.
You say this in response to a series of skulls showing a gradual transformation?